Racists medical schools??

[kimosabe]

Reguarding schools such as Howard, Morehouse, Meharry, and Ponce, do they only take minority students (or primarily take minorities)? If this is the case, what is the rational behind this ludicrous practice known as racism. This may not be the case however, i don't know what the criteria is for admissions, if somebody does, pleas enlighten me.
peace KIMO
ps, all comments and Criticism welcome.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tBw]

1. they don't take exclusively minority students, they have representation from all races

2. yes, they have a higher proportion of under-represented minorities. So what, so does UCSF.

3. They get more applications from under-represented minorities, so doesn't it make sense that statement 2 above would come true?

4. The schools mission is to train doctors that will provide service to these under-served communities. Doesn't it also make sense that those most likely to go on and do this, are those that came from there? Doesn't it make sense that these same future doctors are the ones most likely to be assimilated into such areas? Not necessarily, but still more likely.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
1. they don't take exclusively minority students, they have representation from all races

2. yes, they have a higher proportion of under-represented minorities. So what, so does UCSF.

3. They get more applications from under-represented minorities, so doesn't it make sense that statement 2 above would come true?

4. The schools mission is to train doctors that will provide service to these under-served communities. Doesn't it also make sense that those most likely to go on and do this, are those that came from there? Doesn't it make sense that these same future doctors are the ones most likely to be assimilated into such areas? Not necessarily, but still more likely.

Thats all fine and good. But the thing that REALLY ticks me off is when these schools who use affirmative action or otherwise give preferential admissions treatment to people based on race (i.e. 95% of all US medical schools), they still claim to be "equal opportunity" institutions.

The phrase "Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action" is an oxymoron. You can be one or the other, but not both. As long as the schools would remove that slogan and just come straight out and say they have race preferences, then I can live with that. What bothers me is this hypocritic attitude of "yes we use affirmative action but we dont discriminate based on race" WTF is that???

Can somebody please explain that one for me?

 

[tBw]

Originally posted by MacGyver


What bothers me is this hypocritic attitude of "yes we use affirmative action but we dont discriminate based on race" WTF is that???

Can somebody please explain that one for me?

Sure. They consider race in their admissions procedure, but it's not the only factor. However, if they admitted it, someone would sue them. qed, they say they do not discriminate based on race. Wouldn't you?

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by the boy wonder


Sure. They consider race in their admissions procedure, but it's not the only factor. However, if they admitted it, someone would sue them. qed, they say they do not discriminate based on race. Wouldn't you?

You're right I agree that its not the only factor. However, discrimination does not necessarily mean that race is the sole factor of consideration.

Any decision which uses race to ANY degree is discriminatory.

 

[tBw]

btw, I don't know what the exact break down of their applicant pool is. I know they get more minority applicants, but I would suspect that many non-minorities don't even consider these schools. Howard has great low tuition and is in a great city....but how many of us applied there....? I suspect it's all self-fulfilling.

 

[MacGyver]

They can technically say anything they want to. I'm not advocating that the government crack down and censor their language.

What I am saying is that if they insist on using that language, they are hypocrites, plain and simple

 

[lola]

yeah...i would bet some of these schools aren't actually that hard to get into if you're not african american b/c the number of non-aa applicants is probably very low. if that's the case, then you can't really say there's discrimination.

i didn't apply, because i wouldn't feel comfortable at these schools. i've been exposed to asian and hispanic cultures much more than african american culture, and i don't think i'd feel comfortable at a 95% african american school. i would feel like an outsider i think, because many of the students chose the school because they wanted to be with african americans -- not with a white girl like me

 

[tBw]

Originally posted by MacGyver
They can technically say anything they want to. I'm not advocating that the government crack down and censor their language.

What I am saying is that if they insist on using that language, they are hypocrites, plain and simple

they're only hypocritical if they say discrimination is bad and then do it. If they claim they don't discriminate and then do, thats just dishonest, not hypocritical....

I guess I think they're applicant pool would lead to those demographics regardless. Even if they do discriminate I don't necessarily think it's not appropriate given the schools stated mission. And if they have to say "we don't" to avoid a frivolous lawsuit...well that's just the scoiety we live in. Myself, I feel more irritated with law suits which make it difficult for schools to be honest about their admissions policies. That's part of the reason schools won't publish their numbers cut-offs due to past law suits over it. I'de rather know, just so I know who is worth paying AMCAS the $30 for and who isn't....

 

[CANES2006]

Why are you only targeting those schools? We can also call many top schools racist based on the fact that they have so few Hispanics (I'm just picking this race as an example) as students compared to the proportion of the population that Hispanics make up. I am so tired of hearing people complain about affirmative action (by the way, I am not a URM who might "benefit" from affirmative action) and labeling schools that have an overabundance of minorities as racist. How about the discrimination against minorities that goes on in MANY schools? I can tell you one thing, racial discrimination takes place alot more often than reverse discrimination does, yet many minorities don't whine half as much as you guys are doing. Please try another perspective. I don't agree with many facets of affirmative action, but I agree even less with discrimination based solely on race or ethnicity. Yeah, affirmative action isn't always fair, but you guys are not the only victims.

 

[KKay999]

First of all schools like Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse were created to give minorities an opportunity of a medical education because the opportunities weren't as abundant for them at other medical schools around the country. If you argue that it is discrimination because these predominantly minority schools accept predominantly minority applicants, you can also argue that it's discrimination because predominantly caucasian schools accept predominantly caucasian applicants. We can go back and forth forever with this!!

The bottom line is that we all need to get off this race/discrimination/affirmitive action issue. Why can't some people just realize that there are a LIMITED number of spots available for 10's of thousands of applicants, thousands who are indeed qualified. Meaning sombody is going to get left out. Stop blaming it on race!

 

[Tweetie_bird]

Originally posted by MacGyver




The phrase "Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action" is an oxymoron. You can be one or the other, but not both.

Can somebody please explain that one for me?

hmm, not sure if I agree with this. Think of Affirmative Action as something that helps level the playing field, thus giving an Equal Opportunity to those that didn't have the right resources (socioeonomic status which eventually affects school performance etc) to excel in education.

Think of an underprivileged person who comes from the ghetto (is that word even politically correct?) Anyway, if they come from a poor SE background, they most likely would not have attended the best high school (trust me, I've seen really REALLY bad ones) and that eventually feeds itself into a not-so-good college edcuation. Combine that with having to work for money 24/7 because your family couldn't afford it. Your high school career wasn't the best so it's not like you can get **that** many scholarships either. What AA does is. . sort of like a normalizer. It takes the range of ALL underprivileged people applying, and takes the best from that category. It's not discrimination--they are still in competition with the rest of the pool. It's just that due to different reasons and more detailed above, the average stats of the pool seem to be smaller which **makes it seem** like it's easier for them to get into med school. It's not as easy for them as we think. In any case, there are schools out there that advocate such people in the field because they are under-represented. If you are from Town A, most likely, you will end up working in Town A also. Med schools recognize that and want to recruit people from similar areas so that the resources come BACK to the state. i.e. they want to make sure that after training, those docs will eventually help people from their similar background. Note: this is only a trend; there are exceptions.

You could also say that it's unfair/discriminatory that foreign medical students need to have much higher grades on their USMLE to get a residency. Why does this bias exist? Med schools want to make sure that those people it recruits, also end up working for the US. Not take those skills and practise them in a different country. This is why (I have heard) it's harder for IFGs find it harder to locate into a US residency. Is that discrimination? I don't know. but I think med schools are justified in doing this "discrimination" (which I think is too harsh of a word to use) to level the playing field.

Tweetie

 

[tBw]

i don't think you can equate racism with the class not reflecting the general population make-up whatever race you feel is under-represented (even if you're crazy enough to say caucasian... )

You have to compare the class make up to the applicant pool.

if 99.99995% applicants to that school are white or black or tooth fairies, then your class will reflect this - you can't get a class that reflects general demographics

 

[KKay999]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
i don't think you can equate racism with the class not reflecting the general population make-up whatever race you feel is under-represented (even if you're crazy enough to say caucasian... )

Maybe non-minority is a more proper term.

 

[Bikini Princess]

Originally posted by kimosabe
Reguarding schools such as Howard, Morehouse, Meharry, and Ponce, do they only take minority students (or primarily take minorities)? If this is the case, what is the rational behind this ludicrous practice known as racism.

btw, many doctors (that I've talked to) view these schools as "collecting the dregs" of the URM applicant pool. What a rotten thing to say!

While I don't think this is a fair statement at all, I think it shows that these school's policies do have undesirable consequences.

 

[exigente chica]

Thank you KK and canes2006.
A while back there were not instituions were african americans could attend and get a medical agree. So these schools were created from nothing to help their culture advance in the feild of medicine.
Call it whatever you like, but they have graduated many great doctors, while other schools would not even let them in. So, today the school has become somewhat more diverse, but it was orginally an HBCU and some minorities feel more comfortable being aroung people with the same background and feel that they would loose touch with themselves at other instituions.
Whatever works for you, but don't try that only for them stuff, there are plenty schools that have a majority of s certain type but no one is complaining.

 

[medicine2006]

Before you complain about schools that cater to URM you must understand the history behind each of these schools. Meharry was founded by two white brothers. While embarking on a journey westward one of the brothers wagon broke or was ransacked or something. I don't remember the exact details. Anyways these former slaves helped this guy out. Gave him food and shelter. He promised to repay them for their kindness. So years later him and his brother used their own money to set up a school to train black doctors. So all those complaining about Meharry should stop being whinny brats.

As for Howard it was created in 1867 right after the Civil War to educated African students who otherwise would not have a chance elsewhere. A year later the college of medicine was founded to trains African doctors because there was a flood of former slaves in the north that needed doctors.

I believe these schools were founded with a special purpose and to tie their hands and not let them use race as a criteria would be detrimental to their original intended mission.

 

[Spiderman [RNA Ladder 2003]]

Howard has ~70-80% of URMs and the lowest GPA/MCAT scores for the matriculants.

 

[Bikini Princess]

Originally posted by Spiderman [RNA Ladder 2003]
Howard has ~70-80% of URMs and the lowest GPA/MCAT scores for the matriculants.

I wonder how these schools do as far as first-year drop-out rates & USMLE failure %'s?

 

[Diogenes]

I think that private schools should be allowed to use race or ethnicity or religion or gender as a factor in admissions.

 

[Femtochemistry]

Originally posted by Spiderman [RNA Ladder 2003]
Howard has ~70-80% of URMs and the lowest GPA/MCAT scores for the matriculants.

show me! where are you getting these numbers from?

 

[medicine2006]

Last year Howard and Meharry, I don't know about Morehouse, all had higher step 1 pass rate than the prodominantly caucasain MCP Hahnemann. Take that!

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
they're only hypocritical if they say discrimination is bad and then do it. If they claim they don't discriminate and then do, thats just dishonest, not hypocritical....

Hehe, what are you smoking, boy? Can I quote you on that?

This reminds me of some "expert" on TV arguing against airline profiling... tripping on his own words, trying to convince people that a 90 year old granny is as likely to be a terrorist as an Arab-looking individual.

The reality of this situation is that it is hypocritical but unfortunately necessary, exactly because of what boy said -- protection against law suits. Law is a fickle business and a few contradictory statements can save your arse (anybody remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.").

 

[laviddee]

what a tough issue, and yet a real issue we're going to have to answer and overcome. I for one am for it, and think it's necessary, but I don't think we should sugarcoat what affirmative action is. I think it is a form of discriminaton, but only when looking at it from a racial perspective.

On a socioeconomic level, I think all of us can accept that those who have tougher lives early on, should be given the opportunity to succeed. as Tweetie described, some of us have no idea what it's like working full time, studying full time, shots going on over our heads, just living with no peace... ya know? Therefore whatever your color is, if you live in a scummy area, and just by birth alone are put in a tough living situation... you should be given an extra shot.

On a racial level- it is discrimination. But it's necessary. I think as future doctors we have to understand that we're there for the patients. and many patients prefer and are more comfortable in visiting doctors who are of the same race and who can speak the same language. If schools don't selectively try to encourage and increase the presence of hispanic or native american doctors, etc. who will?

many schools treat each separately, like at michigan undergrad admissions where they boost your gpa up .5(something like that) if you're a URM and if you're disadvantaged socially you get another .3. (i don't know if those are the specific increases, but you get the point that they use them conjunctively)

although i think it's necessary, I think that affirmative action based on the color of your skin alone must one day end. The only reason i say that is, how can we EVER get over the issue of RACE in society, or racial preferences, if schools, government, and jobs are all implementing affirmative action. When you are passed over for a job, or a seat in a school, b/c the person next to you is a minority and you're not-- how can you not be negatively scarred by that and not harbor something against racial preference.

I sound like a politician whose on the fence and can't decide who to make my bed with, but i think AA is totally necessary right now, but there should be a plan made to end it at some point, and rely less on race gradually up to that point.

Socioeconomic affirmative action, however should never end.

 

[Diogenes]

Please explain to me (like I'm an idiot, as I know you all will) why it is wrong for med schools to consider race when reviewing an applicant for admissions.

 

[Bikini Princess]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Please explain to me (like I'm an idiot, as I know you all will) why it is wrong for med schools to consider race when reviewing an applicant for admissions.

Most med schools state that they don't give any preference based on race.

I think the law requires them to include this statement.

 

[mamie]

First off, CANES 2006, you are wise beyond your years.

2. I would argue that Howard and Meharry are probably two of the toughest schools, maybe not in gettng in,but as far as teaching goes, they are tops.

3. As probably one of the few SDNers who went to and graduated from an HBCU, i know that schools that are primarily minority do not discriminate against anyone. If anything, the few 'minorities' at my school generally segregated themselves from the student population, and many were ashamed by going to an HBCU. The fact of the matter is many any this country subconsciously fall victim to the idea that HBCUs are somehow inferior (My interviewer at Yale basically said this to me and I almost knocked his bald head up against the wall). That is why many non-minorities don't apply. Think to yourselves, how many times have you heard people tell others to apply to a GW as a possible safety. Yet, in my opinion Howard has the better curriculum and the better hospital. Yet, many non-minorites do not apply. HBCUs don't discriminate, even though if they wanted to they are within their rights b/c they are all private. They just pick the best that have applied to them. If whites applied and showed a genuine want to matriculate at a HBCU they would be a shoe-in with a scholarship (i've seen this happen too).

4. It never ceases to amaze me when people call discrimination. Many of you are blessed because you will never truly be discriminated against and know its true magnitude. As a black male, i can recount many an instance where I was discriminated against. Yet, i don't hold a grudge or have a chip on my shoulder (well most of the time I don't) and I realized early on that what doesn't kill me only makes me stronger.

peace

 

[Bikini Princess]

Originally posted by mamie
The fact of the matter is many any this country subconsciously fall victim to the idea that HBCUs are somehow inferior (My interviewer at Yale basically said this to me and I almost knocked his bald head up against the wall).

You are exactly right. it's true that many physicians, indeed many physicians who compose the AMA & NRMP, have the perception that these schools are lower quality simply because the matriculants have lower MCAT/GPA/USMLEI&II scores. Sadly, they also they think are lower quality because of their dropout rates and matching %'s. Sadly, people tend to look at schools superficially.

There's a lot about a school which isn't measured by numbers. Even though these schools have terrible statistics, it doesn't necessarily mean they are bad schools.

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Bikini Princess


Most med schools state that they don't give any preference based on race.

I think the law requires them to include this statement.

Okay, so why can't demographic parameters be considered when offering admissions? What is wrong about that?

 

[laviddee]

demographic factors are considered-- for state schools.. is location what you mean by demographic factors??

i think we just all have to accept that there is more than just one single factor. they consider it all. socioeconomic status, race, demographics, grades, mcat, ecs, yada yada... perhaps some of us just have issues with the degree to which they weight some of these.

oh well.
my suggestion is to not blame the ills of the process of applying, just apply, and focus on what things you can control. you can't control the color of your skin, or the fact that you were born with a silver spoon, you just do your job and be the best applicant with what you have.

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by laviddee
demographic factors are considered-- for state schools.. is location what you mean by demographic factors??

i think we just all have to accept that there is more than just one single factor. they consider it all. socioeconomic status, race, demographics, grades, mcat, ecs, yada yada... perhaps some of us just have issues with the degree to which they weight some of these.

oh well.
my suggestion is to not blame the ills of the process of applying, just apply, and focus on what things you can control. you can't control the color of your skin, or the fact that you were born with a silver spoon, you just do your job and be the best applicant with what you have.

I meant race, ethnicity, socioeconomic, religion, gener, sexual orientation, etc.

I totally agree with the 3rd paragraph you wrote. The system isn't so messed up that you won't get a fair shake. So just work hard and forget about what happens to everyone else -- it doesn't really affect you as much as you imagine it to!

 

[Jalby]

/me touches with a 10 foot pole

I think private schools should be allowed to let in whoever they want as long as they can acheive accreditation.

PS MacGuyver, your the worst poster in the history of SDN.

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by mamie
First off, CANES 2006, you are wise beyond your years.

2. I would argue that Howard and Meharry are probably two of the toughest schools, maybe not in gettng in,but as far as teaching goes, they are tops.

3. As probably one of the few SDNers who went to and graduated from an HBCU, i know that schools that are primarily minority do not discriminate against anyone. If anything, the few 'minorities' at my school generally segregated themselves from the student population, and many were ashamed by going to an HBCU. The fact of the matter is many any this country subconsciously fall victim to the idea that HBCUs are somehow inferior (My interviewer at Yale basically said this to me and I almost knocked his bald head up against the wall). That is why many non-minorities don't apply. Think to yourselves, how many times have you heard people tell others to apply to a GW as a possible safety. Yet, in my opinion Howard has the better curriculum and the better hospital. Yet, many non-minorites do not apply. HBCUs don't discriminate, even though if they wanted to they are within their rights b/c they are all private. They just pick the best that have applied to them. If whites applied and showed a genuine want to matriculate at a HBCU they would be a shoe-in with a scholarship (i've seen this happen too).

4. It never ceases to amaze me when people call discrimination. Many of you are blessed because you will never truly be discriminated against and know its true magnitude. As a black male, i can recount many an instance where I was discriminated against. Yet, i don't hold a grudge or have a chip on my shoulder (well most of the time I don't) and I realized early on that what doesn't kill me only makes me stronger.

peace
__________________
Left-Wing nutjob

"Med School provides perhaps the best substantiation for Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. For here we see in its cruelest form the survival of the fittest. Not the smartest, as one should expect. But the fittest to cope with the inhuman pressures, the demands made not only on the brain but on the psyche..." E. Segal

I think you are rather narrow-minded in your view of discrimination. Do you think obese people enjoy the subtle negative treatment that society shows towards them? Do you think that unattractive people don't hold a grudge in a society that glorifies physical appearance? What about Jews, Asians, Arabs, Islamists, Hindus, Buddhists, and on and on and on. Don't be fooled into thinking that African Americans are the only race that experience so-called "true" discrimination. It may seem that way, because they have a well organized and very vocal political base but virtually everyone experiences discrimination. And yes, your discrimination doesn't hurt any more than other peoples.

Oh, and I agree with you 100% -- when it comes to teaching, Howard and Meharry are definitely tops.

PS - Why did you choose the quotation from Segal that you did? Do you see any irony?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Heh, yeah, we should filter admissions based on "race, ethnicity, socioeconomic, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc."

Because medical school admissions is not about merit based criteria that is fair to each applicant nor is it about finding the best and the brightest prospective medical students to produce the best and brightest doctors for patients.....medical school admissions is your personal canvas for social change.

I would personally add disabled people to that list. A kid in a wheelchair lives a much harsher life then any racial minority. Anyone else have a minority group they would like to add to the "special treatment" list?

 

[mamie]

Originally posted by geneman


I think you are rather narrow-minded in your view of discrimination. Do you think obese people enjoy the subtle negative treatment that society shows towards them? Do you think that unattractive people don't hold a grudge in a society that glorifies physical appearance? What about Jews, Asians, Arabs, Islamists, Hindus, Buddhists, and on and on and on. Don't be fooled into thinking that African Americans are the only race that experience so-called "true" discrimination. It may seem that way, because they have a well organized and very vocal political base but virtually everyone experiences discrimination. And yes, your discrimination doesn't hurt any more than other peoples.

Oh, and I agree with you 100% -- when it comes to teaching, Howard and Meharry are definitely tops.

PS - Why did you choose the quotation from Segal that you did? Do you see any irony?

1. The quote is meant to refute many who say stats trully dictate how well someone will do in med school and subsequently as a physician. When you start med school, you will see soon enough.

2. I don't believe i was being narrowminded. If I came off this way I apologize to the readers. Surely other ethnicities no of discrimination just as much if not more than some African-Americans.

3. I understand your qualms about the over-weight and the facially challenged but you cannot seriously place that discrimination on the same level as discrimination against ethnicites. Hitler didn't put fat and ugly people in his death camps along with Gypsies, Jews, and the mentally ******ed. The US didn't put fat and ugly US germans and italians in internment camps along with those of Japanese descent. Fat and ugly people can rent U-hauls for days. Let an Arab walk through the door people start freakin out. Even after McVeigh, people weren't freaking out every time white male went to rent a u-haul or ryder truck.

I understand what you are saying, but please don't try to compare apples (physica looks) to oranges (ethnicity). Both are on diff. levels and you know it. There aren't organizations against ugly and fat people, but do a search for hate groups. Who do they hate? people of diff. ethnicities. When I made the above comment, I was directing that toward many of the white males out there who will never truly know discrimination.

And the comment about Howard and Meharry were way out of line. Once you've taken some classes there, come back to me with a true opinion. Don't talk about something you know nothing about.

My Segal quote is coming.

 

[steiner19er]

Originally posted by mamie


fat and ugly US .... italians

now im pissed
u insulted us fat and ugly italians
appologize now MF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CANES2006]

Originally posted by steiner19er


now im pissed
u insulted us fat and ugly italians
appologize now MF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mamie]

Hey man, i got nothing but love for my overweight and ugly worldwide.

peace

 

[steiner19er]

Originally posted by mamie
Hey man, i got nothing but love for my overweight and ugly worldwide.

peace

i will take that as your appology

now i can put down my Ben and Jerry's and wipe off the ProActive from my face

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Have we thoroughly convinced ourselves that Howard and Harvard have medical students of equal quality?

LOL

 

[mamie]

Originally posted by steiner19er


i will take that as your appology

now i can put down my Ben and Jerry's and wipe off the ProActive from my face

LOL

 

[geneman]

I just want to say that everything you have been saying is skewed. When there was a similar debate in a different thread, I could actually agree with most of some other guy's (DW) arguments, because they were sound, reasonable, and logical.

My responses...

1. I think you have a valid point in saying that numbers alone are not the best indicator of performance. But, like most reactionary arguments of this nature (e.g., feminism), the pendulum swings too far the other way.

Numbers DO have an incredible predictive power. During the World Wars, the Army used the IQ test (which is perhaps one of the crudest tests of all) to distribute men among varying positions -- and it was a resounding success. The reason this system works is because the objectivity of numbers far outweighs the inability to characterize humanistic qualities, which in themselves have major measurement flaws (e.g., some people are smooth-talkers but dumb as bricks).

2. Then why isn't Affirmative Action applied to those other affected ethnicities?

3. Physical qualities and ethnicities may be apples and oranges, but they are both fruits. In other words, discrimination is discriminaton is discrimination. One might argue that subtle prejudice is even worse than Nazi-eqse, because its hard to combat the less blatant. The original point of bringing in obese/ugly/disabled people was to argue that "they have it rough too" and, according to the standard affirmative action logic, should get some dividends as well.

"Don't talk about something you know nothing about." Precisely my sentiments when I originally responded. How can you have a "true opinion" that they are "tops" if you haven't "taken some classes" at other med schools? Usually, when you claim something extraordinary, such as saying that Howard and Meharry are the best teaching medical schools, you better support yourself with some convincing data. "Taking some classes" there and forming a "true opinion" doesn't count.

"My Segal quote is coming." Is that supposed to be some cryptic warning or something? Because I hope it does come. Meritocracy would do some good to our health care system.

Originally posted by mamie


1. The quote is meant to refute many who say stats trully dictate how well someone will do in med school and subsequently as a physician. When you start med school, you will see soon enough.

2. I don't believe i was being narrowminded. If I came off this way I apologize to the readers. Surely other ethnicities no of discrimination just as much if not more than some African-Americans.

3. I understand your qualms about the over-weight and the facially challenged but you cannot seriously place that discrimination on the same level as discrimination against ethnicites. Hitler didn't put fat and ugly people in his death camps along with Gypsies, Jews, and the mentally ******ed. The US didn't put fat and ugly US germans and italians in internment camps along with those of Japanese descent. Fat and ugly people can rent U-hauls for days. Let an Arab walk through the door people start freakin out. Even after McVeigh, people weren't freaking out every time white male went to rent a u-haul or ryder truck.

I understand what you are saying, but please don't try to compare apples (physica looks) to oranges (ethnicity). Both are on diff. levels and you know it. There aren't organizations against ugly and fat people, but do a search for hate groups. Who do they hate? people of diff. ethnicities. When I made the above comment, I was directing that toward many of the white males out there who will never truly know discrimination.

And the comment about Howard and Meharry were way out of line. Once you've taken some classes there, come back to me with a true opinion. Don't talk about something you know nothing about.

My Segal quote is coming.

 

[laviddee]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Heh, yeah, we should filter admissions based on "race, ethnicity, socioeconomic, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc."

Because medical school admissions is not about merit based criteria that is fair to each applicant nor is it about finding the best and the brightest prospective medical students to produce the best and brightest doctors for patients.....medical school admissions is your personal canvas for social change.

I would personally add disabled people to that list. A kid in a wheelchair lives a much harsher life then any racial minority. Anyone else have a minority group they would like to add to the "special treatment" list?

Hey Ryo-
You're right- med school admissions is not always about pure merit. Because, well there's the kid whose dad donated 100k to the school, the kid whose mother is an alum, the kid who simply knows someone on the ad com, etc. Med school isn't always about merit. So what.
that's life.

you'll learn in life, that sometimes people have advantages that others don't. You may have a 'connection' that gets you that residency spot, while many other qualified applicants don't. There are a lot of kids out there, whose parents didn't go to college, aren't alums of anywhere, who don't have research experience b/c they had to work, and don't have the connections that many others may have. Shouldn't what they do in life to overcome the difficulties they face also be considered?
Even if your answer to that is NO. You still have to deal with the fact people have advantages.. and for you to only focus on the 'eggregiousness' of URM advantages, and yet be blind to all the advantages that your position in life, or the advantages that many others have, is a bit short-sighted.

But going back to why disadvantaged 'demographics' should be considered... i would much rather have a student who worked his butt off working and studying, then another who breezed through school without much trouble. Med school isn't only about grades and mcat scores-- it's about perseverance and passion. and yes, a kid who is disabled, who overcomes the difficulty in getting to class, going through physical therapy, kids making fun of him, and a world that says, "you can't do it", SHOULD be looked at more favorably b/c what he has already overcome.

How can you put everyone on paper, stack em up next to each other and simply say that we should take the best statistical students. I know you can't believe that the best students always make the best doctors. and i think you should give the ad coms a bit more credit. With the exception of Stanford(computer based screening), I think they know what they're doing.

 

[DW]

So we meet again, geneman. another reincarnation of the affirmative action/racism/blah blah debate?

First, in all honesty, i'm a "pro-AA"-er in the sense of i see the causes for it, but see need for serious reform in it (thats a whole other can of beans, go read past posts of mine)

point 1: geneman is right, lets not get too idealistic here people. We can make that "numbers dont matter" speech till our eyes fall out, but without tests and GPAs, HOW do you quantify aptitude and ability? I realize statistics can lie occasionally and can be skewed for various factors, but there is a level of academic competency that we need to establish, plain and simple. The approach should be, instead of waiting to the last minute and saying "Ok, since the systems messed up, lets let in a bunch of URMs with sub 3.0 GPAs and 24 MCATs" (which isn't fair to anyone, and will have serious implication on health care quality, no matter where these kids practice), we need to ADDRESS THOSE FACTORS, WHETHER FINANCIAL, BEHAVIORAL, HISTORICAL, INSTITUTIONAL, CULTURAL, OR A SYNERGY OF THE ABOVE FACTORS, that hinder certain group's perfromance BEFORE THIS POINT that might truly alleviate the disparity in numbers to create a true meritocracy.

2.Why AA not extended to some groups? I'm not going to delve into an argument of "whose oppression is worse", but i think it would be fair for someone to argue that so groups, on a RELATIVE scale, have had it worse off than others. Some parties in this country have come to this nation, faced considerable adversity. Some parties have had laws specifically designed to prevent their matriculation into certain schools, denied suffrage, as recently as 40 years ago.

I wont name specific groups for the sake of not perpuating stereotypes, but if a member of a certain minority group is highly prejudiced against and the stereotype is that they are hardworking, industrious, and bookwormish, its a pretty damn good stereotype that some groups would love to have when trying to secure a business loan or get a job. There are some groups considerably on the short end of that stick. But, I will concede that in some cases, the problem of expectations is SELF INFLICTED, a serious concern to be dealt with in our education system and in our american culture in general.

3. once again, physical and ethnic are both forms of discrimination, but lets think on relative terms again. You can have some substantial control over weight and looks, you can work out, dress, etc. No laws have denied votes to ugly people, and no "I hate fat people" groups have been present at least to my knowledge (outside of the writers for Cosmo). No matter how you behave, you will ALWAYS be the race you were born in this world, plain and simple. Unfortunately, some of us can be pulled over inexplicably on the road/stared at in grocery stores solely on the merit of appearance, or treated on some other completely ridiculous base just on the structure of your eyes and the color of your skin.

The dead horse is getting the **** kicked out of it again, poor bastard.

as usual geneman, your points are well taken

Originally posted by geneman
I just want to say that everything you have been saying is skewed. When there was a similar debate in a different thread, I could actually agree with most of some other guy's (DW) arguments, because they were sound, reasonable, and logical.

My responses...

1. I think you have a valid point in saying that numbers alone are not the best indicator of performance. But, like most reactionary arguments of this nature (e.g., feminism), the pendulum swings too far the other way.

Numbers DO have an incredible predictive power. During the World Wars, the Army used the IQ test (which is perhaps one of the crudest tests of all) to distribute men among varying positions -- and it was a resounding success. The reason this system works is because the objectivity of numbers far outweighs the inability to characterize humanistic qualities, which in themselves have major measurement flaws (e.g., some people are smooth-talkers but dumb as bricks).

2. Then why isn't Affirmative Action applied to those other affected ethnicities?

3. Physical qualities and ethnicities may be apples and oranges, but they are both fruits. In other words, discrimination is discriminaton is discrimination. One might argue that subtle prejudice is even worse than Nazi-eqse, because its hard to combat the less blatant. The original point of bringing in obese/ugly/disabled people was to argue that "they have it rough too" and, according to the standard affirmative action logic, should get some dividends as well.

"Don't talk about something you know nothing about." Precisely my sentiments when I originally responded. How can you have a "true opinion" that they are "tops" if you haven't "taken some classes" at other med schools? Usually, when you claim something extraordinary, such as saying that Howard and Meharry are the best teaching medical schools, you better support yourself with some convincing data. "Taking some classes" there and forming a "true opinion" doesn't count.

"My Segal quote is coming." Is that supposed to be some cryptic warning or something? Because I hope it does come. Meritocracy would do some good to our health care system.

 

[mamie]

Originally posted by geneman [/i]
"I just want to say that everything you have been saying is skewed."

I've said three things:
1. HBCUs get no respect.
2. Many non-majority people in this country will never truly know discrimination.
3. Discrimination against ethnicity is on a different level than discrimination against physical appearence.

How is this skewed?


"1. I think you have a valid point in saying that numbers alone are not the best indicator of performance. But, like most reactionary arguments of this nature (e.g., feminism), the pendulum swings too far the other way.

Numbers DO have an incredible predictive power. During the World Wars, the Army used the IQ test (which is perhaps one of the crudest tests of all) to distribute men among varying positions -- and it was a resounding success. The reason this system works is because the objectivity of numbers far outweighs the inability to characterize humanistic qualities, which in themselves have major measurement flaws (e.g., some people are smooth-talkers but dumb as bricks)."


I agree with you hear Geneman. Numbers are important, but they only make up a small portion of the total student.


"2. Then why isn't Affirmative Action applied to those other affected ethnicities?"

I don't know. It is funny that whenever someone mentions AA, he first thing that comes to mind is a black person getting over on a white person, when in fact countless ethnicities have been afforded opportunities through specific AA programs.


"3. Physical qualities and ethnicities may be apples and oranges, but they are both fruits. In other words, discrimination is discriminaton is discrimination. One might argue that subtle prejudice is even worse than Nazi-eqse, because its hard to combat the less blatant. The original point of bringing in obese/ugly/disabled people was to argue that "they have it rough too" and, according to the standard affirmative action logic, should get some dividends as well."


Have you ever had a gun pulled on you by a police officer. I have. Now that was some shyt. And it was on some straight race crap. Discrimination, is discrimination, is discrimination is bullshyt. If i look back through history, I do not see one instance where fat people or ugly people are ostracized in ways that are comparable to ethnicities. Yet, one can recount thousands of events where people of different ethnicities were exiled, enslaved, tortured, and murdered. They may have it rough, but not on the level of some ethnicities


"Don't talk about something you know nothing about." Precisely my sentiments when I originally responded. How can you have a "true opinion" that they are "tops" if you haven't "taken some classes" at other med schools? Usually, when you claim something extraordinary, such as saying that Howard and Meharry are the best teaching medical schools, you better support yourself with some convincing data. "Taking some classes" there and forming a "true opinion" doesn't count."

Well let's see. I never said they were the greatest, I said that they were up there with the way that they teach. But how would I know this? Well, my mother was an instructor at Howard. I have a friend who just graduated from Howard who is doing ortho at the Cleveland Clinic. I have several friends who are there now. I also have many classmates at Meharry as well. I also know as HBCUs, these schools have to strive harder because of peope like yourself who believe that they are somehow inferior. How many people do you know at Howard and Meharry? Maybe you can ask them if my opinion is right or wrong.


"My Segal quote is coming." Is that supposed to be some cryptic warning or something? Because I hope it does come. Meritocracy would do some good to our health care system."

So true, so true.

peace

 

[DW]

Originally posted by mamie

countless ethnicities have been afforded opportunities through specific AA programs.

whoa whoa, I've got to take you up on this one. "Countless" others? Excluding the "white female factor" and a few (not all) hispanics, what are you defining as the countless other groups?

The implicit failure of this "favoritism" system is that i feel it does not approriately stratify for economic disparity, but blindly uses race alone most of the time. That mostly helps out the "not so hard off" URM, which is counterproductive for many reasons. Any system of "extra consideration for the poor/not so well off" must include all those disadvantaged, including poor whites from appalachia. With that higher relative percentage of minorities who are actually disadvantaged, a solely economic application consideration could provide a fair means of disparity adjustment.

if we to take on disadvantaged/minority students through this program for the sake of improving healthcare in poor communities, not only do we place those early measures to insure a legitimate candiacy for med school, but any economic/disadvantaged preferences in the admissions process should be accompained by a contractual agreement saying you will work in x community for y years. more than fair i think, the taxpayers are paying for it usually.

 

[mamie]

Originally posted by DW


whoa whoa, I've got to take you up on this one. "Countless" others? Excluding the "white female factor" and a few (not all) hispanics, what are you defining as the countless other groups?

The implicit failure of this "favoritism" system is that i feel it does not approriately stratify for economic disparity, but blindly uses race alone most of the time. That mostly helps out the "not so hard off" URM, which is counterproductive for many reasons. Any system of "extra consideration for the poor/not so well off" must include all those disadvantaged, including poor whites from appalachia. With that higher relative percentage of minorities who are actually disadvantaged, a solely economic application consideration could provide a fair means of disparity adjustment.

if we to take on disadvantaged/minority students through this program for the sake of improving healthcare in poor communities, not only do we place those early measures to insure a legitimate candiacy for med school, but any economic/disadvantaged preferences in the admissions process should be accompained by a contractual agreement saying you will work in x community for y years. more than fair i think, the taxpayers are paying for it usually.

Damn, i new someone was going to get me on that. I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out my erroneous statement.

As far was what you've said, very well stated. I think that the form of AA that is being used at this moment was instituted in order to be a 'quick fix' of our country's volatile past. However, why should you have to sign a contract saying you will work in underserved area X, while the person who has had it well off doesn't, basically prohibiting possible future ambitions of the disadventaged student. This may punish the disadvantaged student, who may not want to work in said community, just for coming from the wrong side of town while the advantaged still reap the benefits.

peace

 

[Adcadet]

Originally posted by Tweetie_bird

What AA does is. . sort of like a normalizer. It takes the range of ALL underprivileged people applying, and takes the best from that category.

It would be nice if the above were true and actually done. Unfortunately, I sense that many med schools will give preference to somebody who checks a box that corresponds to an URM and leave it at that.

Consider...

- a person of a minority race who came from a very wealthy family, could afford to live in great places, went to great schools, never had to work a day in his/her life. Is this person deserving of URM status?

- a person who was of a minority race but was adopted into a wealthy, white family/community. Is this person deserving of URM status?

- a person who is white (majority), yet grew up in a minority family with few resources. Is this person deserving of URM status?

- a white person (majority) who grew up poor with few resources. Is this person deserving of URM status? Do we consider economic status in "minority?"

-a white person (majority) grew up in a predominately minority community, and experienced racism as a result. Is this person URM?

- my undergrad college is 60% female, and these days 70% of the applicants are female. So in effect, my undergrad college is giving preference to males (who tend to score lower on ACT, SAT, and GPA). Is this OK?

I hope med schools consider each person individually when they consider who is deserving of the URM title.


At least med schools use *under represented*... I think this is a much more rational way of going about EO than just giving preference to all minorities.

 

[DW]

Originally posted by mamie


However, why should you have to sign a contract saying you will work in underserved area X, while the person who has had it well off doesn't, basically prohibiting possible future ambitions of the disadventaged student. This may punish the disadvantaged student, who may not want to work in said community, just for coming from the wrong side of town while the advantaged still reap the benefits.

peace

Good point and I'll tell you exactly why (and I want to work in poor communities mind you). Because, what many premeds here fail to realize when we go into our 100K of school debt, is that we aren't the one's REALLY picking up the tab to pay for medical education/residency, a lot of that comes out of medicare, medicaid, public funds/tax dollars. And if we are to give any extra assistance to anyone (minorities, poor whites/asians) in order to facilitate their acceptance to/survival of a M.D. program, then thats money coming out of everyone's pocket, and whether you like it our not you are a financial and legal liability to the school, state, and federal government. So, i think its entirely fair to say to applicants of those students who get in with a little help to say "ok, we'll give you a little extra consideration, we'll give you a little $ for school, but you have to pay us back for it by addressing the needs of our state for a while". thats why i think some of aa's goals basically could be addressed IN PART by expanding the scope and direction of programs such as the national health service corps.

as some economist wisely put it "there's no such thing a free lunch"

 

[mamie]

Fair enough DW. Well argued. I commend you. Such a program would benefit all of us, both physicians and patients.

peace.